Will all the grammar for SATs be used in Secondary?

[bicyclebell]

A question for teachers, both primary and secondary.

I'm appalled at all this obsessive grammar learning children are being made to do in primary for the SATS - under the new curriculum.

Its the labeling I can't stand. I'm sure its useful to learn some grammar - although I didn't in the 80s. And I still went to university to study English.

Its worrying me so much that I'm thinking of taking my children out in Year 6 to home school them and so miss the stress and boredom of that SATS year. I'll keep them learning - but not bother with all the grammar labeling.

Will that cause problems in secondary school do you think?

whatwouldrondo it's really great to hear someone mention the influence of reading on the development of children's grasp of grammar. The (basic but essential) grammar I learnt at school taught me the rules, but my habit of devouring books from a really early age is what I believe helped to develop my vocabulary and writing skills.

Childrens'

DS1 has recently sat the entrance assessment for a selective independent secondary school. They needed a very firm grounding in grammar. And even at schools where there are only limited points allocated to grammar/punctuation/spelling, a couple of points here and there are likely to make the difference between getting a place and not getting a place.

Surely the fact that grammar isn't to be taught in secondaries is the very reason some time needs to be taken to focus on it at primary level. They might not need to recall the terminology for a particular grammatical rule but they certainly need to know how to apply the rule in order to construct well written pieces. It's vital for example that they know when to say "Fred and I" rather than "Fred and me". Secondaries should be able to assume that this knowledge is already there so that they can then build upon it (in all subjects, not just English).

I think people are focussing on the usefulness of knowing the names and the terminology (which might not be that useful unless they are studying a foreign language to a high level) rather than the usage of language and punctuation (where this grounding will be of significant use to them). It's slightly bizarre to say they're learning a complicated system which will then be forgotten. The point is that by learning the rules it isn't then forgotten, it becomes natural to use the correct words/punctuation in the correct way.

And whilst this thread has largely focused on grammar, the same applies to spelling. Like it or not, you can be as creative as you like but if you cannot spell frequently used words you are going to create a poor impression.

I see CVs on a regular basis with appalling grammar and spelling. They don't get a second look if there is a candidate with the same qualifications/skills but good grammar and spelling.

We are doing our children a disservice by not placing importance on these things. Particularly when the world around them places obstacles in their way in the form of frequent sight of US spellings due to the internet, text speak and made up spellings of words/names. We need to make sure that they can ignore these obstacles because they know the "right" way to express themselves in writing.

kesstrel I fully agree that it is esential that DCs are taught the required grammar to enable them to write correctly.

I think, for me, the main question is whether knowing the terms highlighted by spanieleyes:

subjunctive mood,
past progressive tense,
present perfect,
passive and active voice,
subordinate clauses,
cohesive device,
co-ordinating and subordinating conjunctions,
fronted adverbial phrases,
transitive and intransitive verbs,
modal verbs

is essential for primary children in order to enable them to write correctly.

If you take the example of a child learning to read at 3 and a child learning to read at the age of 6/7. Can we assume that the child learning to read at the age of 3 will always be the better reader?

I have no problem with my DCs learing these "labels" but will it make a difference in the long run. For these to now be embed into the primary school curriculm, evidently someone thinks it will.

I will also add that my DC1 is showing no interest in MFL nor is he showing any real aptitude. It would appear that a number of people on this thread have suggested that learning these "labels" will help my DC learn MFL. If that is the case then I can see the value in them.

kestrel I was disputing the claim that the 11+ selective exams require this depth of knowledge of grammar. They don't, they are designed to identify ability and potential, and actually to discriminate those whose heads have been crammed with stuff from those with genuine ability. They test primarily thinking skills.

I don't dispute that all children should be given a basic grounding in grammar and spelling, the basic rules we all use daily. Of course it is scandalous that people leave school without understanding those basic rules and unable to construct a sentence knowing it requires a verb, a noun etc. It was actually very important for my DDs and I because we are dyslexic and actually don't learn things like grammar, spelling or punctuation intuitively at all.

However this is not what Year 6s are going to be tested on. I, and many other parents don't know / understand half these labels. As others have highlighted they are being taught not just the basics but a complicated system of labels that frankly only a minority of pedants would regard as essential to effective communication in the English language. Those with learning disabilities are actually going to find especially difficult to learn this system of labels to a test. It would fill me with absolute despair and I have a Masters in Literature. It is as one dyslexic author described it, like wrapping all the beauty of our language up in a brown paper package and then putting many extra layers of sellotape on it for those with learning difficulties that make it even more difficult to access.

Yes but they are not learning the terms in isolation. They are being taught the rule and then told "And we call this rule/type of word "x" " The fact that the rule is given a label allows them to identify it again and explain what it is quickly and easily.

Its really only an extension of phonics with "phonemes" etc. I never knew what a "phoneme" was at school but I still managed to learn to read. However I'm sure early years practitioners would say that having a term and a label for the concept can be helpful for the children when learning to read. (disclaimer I'm still not entirely sure what a phoneme is and so my example might not be the best ).

Someone asked if in other cuntries they do teach grammar at that level.

The answer is YES they do.
Because in French you can't spell properly wo a good konowledge of grammar.
Because there is no way you have the rigt endings in German wo knowing grammar either.
In Spanish, they use a lot of sbjunctives and you need to, agaiun, know the grammar to know which subjunctive you are supposed to use

So yes they will learn a lot of the terminology as it is essential to learning the language.

I do think that not knowing the grammar is putting people at a big disadvantage when learning a MFL. maybe a reason why British are so poor at that too.

I ahve to say, coming from a country where grammar is taught from reception, I'm struggling to see any issue with the new curriculum (or ta least on that pov).
All the talk about 'stopping children from being creative' has also NOT being my experience. You learn to write a text. You learn how to spot a certain type of word, function in the sentence etc... Two different works done for different reason (eg one is the creative writting whereas the other will be used for spellings etc...)

spaniel a lot of those were taught in France when I was a child.
Some of them I came across whilst learning Spanish because this was more relevant to that language than French.
I agree with Dorothy, in Germany, they would need to learn all the cases and that in itself will be a hell of a lot of work compare to the very grammatically easy structure of the english language.

In that way, no there is no need in English (compare to other languages) to learn as much grammar. English is grammatically easy.
But the knowledge of the grammar helps, ime, to structure the sentences and gain an understanding of the language you wouldn't get otherwise.
Of course, students who are very able in English might not need that pointed out to them. The rest would.

I learned to speak, read, write in English informally by living in US. When I went to uni and took French, I really struggled, while my friends sailed through. Now I understand why, I don't have basic knowledge of grammar. Structure of my native language is completely different from English etc, so knowing them didn't really help. Also when I was abroad, I must have missed learning basic grammar in my own language as well...

LoveBoursin what country did you go to school?

When you say they are taught grammar from reception do you meant capital letters, full stops, comma, noun, verb type. grammar or do you actually meant:

subjunctive mood,
past progressive tense,
present perfect,
passive and active voice,
subordinate clauses,
cohesive device,
co-ordinating and subordinating conjunctions,
fronted adverbial phrases,
transitive and intransitive verbs,
modal verbs

Childrens'

Actually, you were right the first time; it's children's.

(I wouldn't normally point that out, by the way - it just seems relevant on this occasion!)

Most of those wuld have been covered by the end of primary.
I have to say I can't remember that specifically, it's too far away but yes we strateds by noun, verb etc, tense for the verbs.
Conjunctions, passive voice, subordinate clauses (and the different types of ..), transitive verbs etc... were done in what is the equivalent of Y2~Y3 (well that's what I remember) and then reviewed again and again and again. (well again that's my memory of it, I might be biaised )

French doesn't have modal verbs.

Eg : Transitive verbs and intransitive verbs and where the direct object (?? translation) is in the sentence will determine spelling of the verb. So this is something quite essential.

Because this is part of knowing the structure of the sentence, subordinate clauses, conjunctions etc are also taught very early on as well as active/passive voice etc...

Knowing what the terms mean is useful because that is what allows a teacher to talk about the underlying issue. It's a form of shorthand. If you don't know what subordinate clauses and coordinating and subordinating conjunctions are, for example, you won't understand punctuation, unless you are doing it intuitively. Simply learning about commas won't tell you where to use them.

I don't know whether all of the terms are necessary at this age, but I do think some of them are. I had the experience of teaching grammar and punctuation to my dyspraxic daughter at age 18, because she had never been taught it and her writing was really suffering, so I do have some direct experience of this.

kesstrel those questions were not directed at you specifically. I highlighted your name as I agree with the point your made.

Mum Sorry, I was just using your list to make my point because it was the closest one to hand!

multivac thanks (I think). I don't think I have ever made so many typos / mistakes as when typing in this thread! Must be feeling the pressure.

Hello!

I'm the Head of English at a high-achieving independent school. It's interesting to see English teachers coming on here to say that the curricula don't tie up.....because our interpretation is that they definitely do. We have started by teaching our Year 10s the linguistic terminology on this basis.

Sorry to be annoying, but here is the National Curriculum: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381754/SECONDARY_national_curriculum.pdf and the 19 page linguistic glossary is, I think, pretty important. Yes, we're not teaching our students everything on it....but I do think it is likely to be there for a reason and not to be ignored.

The new GCSEs are rather hazy, and I won't feel happy until we've seen more examplar materials...but our interpretation is that in the exams, in order to access the higher marks, students will need to have a firm grasp of key linguistic terminology.

And so, in answer to the OP's question, my interpretation of the new GCSEs in English is that students will need to use the grammar terms taught to them in Year 6. We will be following through on this in our KS3 teaching.

(and there is actually loads of research on this issue, which teachers are sort of slightly riotous about. We stopped formally teaching them grammar in the 1970s, because it takes up loads of time and doesn't really pay off in terms of helping students to actually formulate sentences/ write well...not least because you are now spending weeks and weeks and weeks getting them to learn the names for parts of the sentence, instead of letting them practise writing those sentences)

Curious I disagree and having sat through the exam board's expectations pupils will not need to know linguistic terminology and nowhere on the spec does it say so.
They need to be able to use a range of grammar within their writing and will be marked on technique. Questions on the written papers for fiction are asking for interpretation of text and not grammar. Non fiction remains the same.
I will say again - nobody is disputing a need for good grammar - just that they way it has been introduced and is being delivered to the children (through government tests) does not help children improve literacy. My degree is language and lit and whilst I can identify and use all the techniques of grammar I don't sit and analyse my writing when I am in full flow to check my clauses!

Curioushorse Mon 29-Feb-16 18:29:46 - We have started by teaching our Year 10s the linguistic terminology on this basis

Is there a reason why you have not already been teaching it to lower year groups or why you will be starting with year 10s rather than lower year gropus?

This is a genuine question, not a dig at you.

But the linguistic terminology in the secondary curriculum you have posted is JUST the same as the year 5/6 curriculum! Have you actually compared the two?

So I'm curious Curious .

Are you saying that in GCSE English Language / Literature you would now be expecting students to be using phrases such as:
The use of the fronted adverbial "Silently" is effective because ...
or
Using the subordinating conjunction "but" rather than "and" shows that the writer intends to express feelings of .....
or
By use of the modal verb "could" we understand that ...

Hi spanieleyes, yes. That's why we're assuming that they're supposed to be linking in together. I'd like to think that the DFE is at least vaguely logical (vaguely!)

MumTrying, we are teaching it lower down the school too....but it's rather urgent with our Year 10s as they are starting their GCSE course now, and hence, if they do need this stuff, then they need to learn it now. And they didn't learn it lower down the school, or in Primary School.

Hi pieceofpurple, I absolutely don't want to freak you out, and we're also completely prepared to be wrong. Who know's what'll happen when the students are assessed in summer 2017? I think the assessment criteria have changed focus though. We may well be be sitting a different exam board, but on the English Language exemplar materials we've seen (and, yes, these are limited), the students were expected to use grammatical and linguistic terminology in the way that they haven't been in the past. Yes, there is absolutely no way that they need to know the ridiculous time-wasting nonsense that they learn for Year 6 (and, indeed, what use much of that terminology would be when they're analysing language effects, I don't know), but the student examples that I've seen, and the examiner comments that I've seen, did use linguistic/ grammatical terminology in the way that I've only seen literary terminology used before.

When I said that I was 'interested' to see other English teachers' interpretations of the criteria, I genuinely did mean that!

Curioushorse are you finding that DCs joining your school from private preps. have already covered much of the grammar that is being proposed for the year 6 SATs?